Comcast, Time Warner Agree to Merge

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Comcast, Time Warner Agree to Merge

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

Cenodoxus posted:

From the consumer's point of view, sure, but how do four electric companies on the same block play nicely with each other? Four sets of lines on four poles?

Distribution, generation, and billing are all done separately. There is a single monopoly of distribution in your neighborhood, which has highly regulated pricing. Generally speaking, by default the same company will purchase electricity on your behalf and then bill you for the entire process, however it could be that your town negotiates a better price for all residents with a particular generation company, and then a third party handles your metering and billing. The billing company will pay the distribution company and the town, who then in turn pays the producer. Because of the regulation that electricity distributors are under there can be competition.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2014 16:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 02:25

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

psydude posted:

Service providers always oversubscribe their lines, just ask anyone who owns a cell phone inside of a major city. That's why they get you with the "SPEEDS OF UP TO" line. DOCSIS is a pretty outdated technology, but good luck convincing Comcast et al to switch.

I don't think you are implying that it is bad, but I wanted to come right out and say that it's not bad.

If the entire feed for a neighborhood is capable of 1gbps, I don't want to have only 1/50th of the max because I am sharing with 50 others who probably aren't using it at the same time -- I want the capability to use a large percentage when my neighbors are sleeping, and a more fair share when they are looking at pictures of their grandkids. Not everyone understands that but providing a baseline of service with bursting when others are idle is an importing piece of todays networking and virtualization strategies.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2014 03:00

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

Alereon posted:

The ISP is already being paid by their subscribers for that traffic, why should they be allowed to double-dip? If you look at it like a phone call, you're suggesting telcos get paid three times: each end should pay their telco for the minutes they use, and then the calling party should also additionally pay the receiving telco a second time for the minutes the recipient used.

They aren't double dipping. Netflix added Comcast as an upstream ISP for less money than they were paying cogent to be an ISP. There is likely an agreement that traffic that Netflix sends directly to Comcast won't leave the Comcast network, but either way, there is no more double dip than there is when I download a movie from bittorrent from another subscriber of my ISP.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2014 01:57

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

Alereon posted:

You know that when I download a big file on my cellphone and pay T-Mobile a bunch of money for the privilege they do not also get to charge the site I downloaded it from, right? I mean obviously you do, and this situation is no different, so I'm not sure what we disagree on.

If the website you were loading was already using tmobile as their ISP, it would be exactly that. And this is exactly that scenario. Netflix has chosen to add Comcast as an upstream ISP because they are getting a better rate.

There is no way any real ISP could make Netflix suck on their network and not take a shitload of customer backlash.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2014 04:20

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

Install Windows posted:

I just wonder how many of the people upset about Netflix direct peering are aware that Microsoft, Google, and Facebook among others already participate in direct peering with Comcast and other ISPs?

none of that matters because gently caress Comcast.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2014 05:42

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

SamDabbers posted:

Comcast basically forced Netflix's hand at the expense of their common customers.

Comcast didn't force Netflix's hand. Netflix had an upstream ISP (cogent) that had a peering agreement with Comcast. The peering agreement allowed cogent to send X bytes of data to Comcast for free. X probably correlated to the size of the gear in the common colocation space. When Netflix traffic caused X to go up, Comcast felt it's peering agreement was being violated, and rightfully so. Cogent could have gotten with Comcast and rewritten the peering agreement, which would have cost both companies money, but cogent would have been paid by Netflix for the increased speed. Instead, Netflix went straight to Comcast, cut out the middle man, and struck a deal that lowered the costs of both Netflix and Comcast.

Content distributors should do this with as many ISPs as they can, because it's good business for everyone involved.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2014 01:34

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

Crotch Fruit posted:

I'm all for treating the internet like a utility.

I am curious what you think the advantage to that is. I know that in my house, I have three options for high speed internet today, and expect at least one more in the next 3 years. For reference, the three are cable, DSL, and 3g/4g (technically I have a choice in carriers there as well). There is plenty of fiber going into the ground all over the place, so I expect some kind of fiber to the premises, or at least fiber to the street scenario soon. Given all of this, why is treating it like a utility, which has little to no competition, useful to me? If you regulate in such a way, what incentive do the fiber carriers have to build to me, when they may not actually be able to compete any longer, due to tariffed rates for their services. Even if you do regulate it that way, how does that prevent carrier hijinx? One of the things I have heard opposition to is "sponsored wireless data". If I access service X, the data used for that won't count against me. I can understand how that benefits the big guys, but how is it any different than a toll free number?

# ¿ Nov 12, 2014 04:26

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

Crotch Fruit posted:

Actually, your choices are slow (DSL), medium (cable) and ungodly regulated and limited but sometimes "fast" 3g/4g, with the possibility of fiber unless your cable provider manages to convince your local government that the fiber provider is not playing nice. I am hoping that treating internet like a utility would prevent fast lanes, at least I sure like that better than the other plan of allowing regulated fast lanes.

I can get 25mbps DSL to my house right now, and there is nothing stopping my LEC from bumping that up to 75mbps if they chose to (25mbps with two pair, I have 6 pair coming into my home). My local cable service CURRENTLY offers 100+mbps at what I would consider to be a reasonable price (under $100/mo). 4g service is extremely fast, with serious bandwidth limits. I have no concerns about my local fiber initiatives being hijacked by Comcast. There are more than one in my town, the most prominent of which is an LLC with strong ties to the local city government.

Not every city is quite as flush with competition as mine is, but that's not a problem for the FCC to solve, it's a problem for LOCAL government and LOCAL business to solve. If you have crony corruption in your town, the answer is to vote them out, not to invite higher level cronies to the party.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2014 05:10

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

Crotch Fruit posted:

Naturally, it's a problem with the local government, and I can do my best to vote but it will not make a difference.

I realize this is going to a D&D tangent, but I find it humorous that your solution to lovely government is more government.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2014 05:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 02:25

adorai: Nov 2, 2002; 10/27/04 Never forget; Grimey Drawer

Crotch Fruit posted:

Yeah it is ironic. . . but if the kids cant play nice, might as well give them rules.

Yeah but the rules will ultimately be written by lobbyists in such a way as to protect the incumbent. Let the market sort it out, and eliminate the barriers to that. Because otherwise the head of the FCC ends up working for Comcast after giving them a sweetheart deal.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2014 05:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Comcast, Time Warner Agree to Merge